legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 9:13 am Post subject: State Iniatives to Legalize/Regulate Online Gambling |
 |
|
WELCOME!
State initiatives to legalize/regulate online gambling:
In Massachusetts:
Yahoo! Finance
Pro-gambling groups pouring millions into Mass.
Pro-gaming groups pouring millions into Mass. lobbying effort ahead of casino gambling debate
By Steve Leblanc, Associated Press Writer
Aug. 24/09
| Quote: | Pro-gambling groups are ramping up their lobbying efforts in Massachusetts as lawmakers weigh whether to adopt slot machines, casino gambling, or a combination of both, a review of state lobbying records by The Associated Press has found. In 2005, companies and groups pushing legalized gambling in Massachusetts spent $764,500 on lobbyists to press their message on Beacon Hill. During the first six months of 2009, those same interests surpassed that total, pouring $777,983 into lobbying. That's on pace to match the $1.57 million spent in 2008 when the state's racetracks were locked in a failed effort to defeat a ballot question to end greyhound dog racing. In the past 4 1/2 years, pro-gambling groups -- including casino developers, the state's racetracks, poker player groups, and gambling technology firms -- have spent more than $5 million on lobbying in Massachusetts.
Even without a ballot fight, lobbying on gambling shows no signs of slowing. In 2005, 16 groups hired lobbyists to push for legislation legalizing casinos and slot machines. By 2009, that number jumped to 26, as more groups try to edge into the debate. And not all of that money is staying in lobbyists' pockets. During the first half of 2009, lobbyists representing pro-gambling firms and groups have shelled out more than $100,000 in campaign donations to Beacon Hill lawmakers, often giving the maximum $200 per year, per lawmaker donation allowed under law, according to the AP's review.
Fueling the lobbying push is the growing sense that some kind of expanded gaming bill could emerge from the Legislature as early as this fall. ... The millions spent by pro-gaming interests in Massachusetts is leaving casino and gambling opponents outgunned. ...
Poker enthusiasts have filed a proposed a ballot question that would legalize Internet poker in Massachusetts and let the state tax winnings. The Washington, D.C.-based Poker Players Alliance -- which supports legalizing Internet poker -- has spent more than $34,000 on lobbying in Massachusetts this year. The question faces a steep climb. If Attorney General Martha Coakley's office rules it can be allowed on the ballot, supporters must collect more than 66,000 signatures. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=687#687 |
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
In Nevada:
Las Vegas Review-Journal
INTERNET GAMBLING: Nevada prepared for the 'if'
State could assume leadership role if legislation passes
By Howard Stutz
Aug. 23/09
| Quote: | Nevada, where declining gaming and sales tax collections have ravaged the biennial budget, could benefit financially if a bill to legalize Internet gambling in the United States is approved by Congress. The potential, however, rests on a big IF. A House of Representatives resolution was introduced in May that would establish a framework to permit licensed online gambling operators to accept wagers from inside the United States.
Legal experts said Nevada has the statutory structure in place to investigate and license online gaming companies. Also, Nevada could become the premier American jurisdiction for hosting Internet casinos. If the sites were to operate from Nevada, gaming regulators said the online businesses would have to pay upfront fees. Also, the online casinos would be taxed at the same rate as Strip casinos, now 6.75 percent on gaming revenues. ...
"(Debate on the bill) probably won't happen this year," said former Sen. Richard Bryan, an attorney with Lionel Sawyer & Collins, who spent 12 years representing Nevada in the U.S. Senate as a Democrat. "My sense, however, is that there is a gathering, gradual momentum where, eventually, Internet gaming will occur and be regulated," Bryan said. "I'm just not sure if it has reached critical mass yet." Lack of action hasn't stopped interest in the subject. Bryan and fellow Lionel Sawyer & Collins attorney Greg Gemignani said the firm has been approached by potential clients who want to set up Internet gambling businesses in Nevada should the activity be legalized.
Nevada lawmakers enacted the process to license Internet gaming in 2001 but the state's effort went dormant a year later when there wasn't any action on the federal level. (emphasis added)
If Internet gaming is legalized under the current bill in Congress, Nevada could be chosen by the Department of Treasury to determine whether an applicant is suitable for federal gaming licensing.Observers believe Nevada, which legalized casinos in 1931, stands to benefit because the state has investigated and licensed gaming companies and regulated the industry longer than any other jurisdiction. "The suitability requirements under the current bill look like a subset of what Nevada already requires," Gemignani said. "Given Nevada's current laws permitting interactive gaming licensing, Nevada is well-placed to be at the forefront of regulating online gaming and providing assistance to the federal government in determining the suitability of applicants."
Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander said the state's current regulatory structure could be enhanced with regulations covering online gambling. Under the state's 2001 law, the Nevada Gaming Commission could set policy that mirrors federal regulations. Nevada online casinos would have to use technology that offers reasonable assurance that wagers would not be accepted from states where Internet gambling is prohibited and that minors could not access the sites.
"We have the enabling legislation in place that would allow us to go forward with the concepts that I've heard are being discussed," Neilander said. "The federal government would set a baseline standard of minimum requirements. It would be up to individual states to opt in." Under the state's law, Nevada could earn upfront fees, which could be larger than normal licensing fees. "We would contemplate going forward with a gaming tax that would be the same as a bricks-and-mortar casino," Neilander said.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., is the main sponsor of House Resolution 2267, the Internet Gambling, Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., whose district includes the Strip, was one of the bill's co-sponsors. The legislation provides safeguards against compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identity theft. ...
Bryan, who was Nevada's attorney general when Atlantic City legalized casinos, was the state's governor when gaming began to expand nationally into riverboat casino markets. Nevada's casino industry initially opposed the growth. Eventually, the Nevada gaming companies moved into new markets and fueled much of the expansion in the 1990s. In 2007, commercial casinos reported gross gaming revenues of $32.54 billion. The American Gaming Association, the casino industry's Washington D.C.-based lobbying arm, estimated that Americans wagered $5.9 billion on gambling Web sites outside the United States. Those same sites took in another $21 billion from gamblers worldwide. "I haven't taken the industry's temperature in terms of Internet gaming, but, because of the potential revenues involved, I do believe there is some momentum moving in favor of the activity," Bryan said. (emphasis added)
Gemignani said gaming companies licensed in Nevada that are interested in jumping into the online casino business would have an advantage over outside companies seeking to break into the market. "There are a substantial number of Nevada licensees with experience in the technologies, systems and management of systems that can be used for online gaming," Gemignani said.
The casino industry is split on Internet gaming. As such, the American Gaming Association has taken a neutral stance on the issue "due to the divergent views of its members," according to a policy statement. "We don't have a public position on the bill, but we are interested observers and will continue to monitor the situation as things progress," Las Vegas Sands Corp. spokesman Ron Reese said.
MGM Mirage took a short-lived stab at running an Internet gambling site in September 2001, but abandoned the idea after 21 months. The casino, which was licensed by the Isle of Man, did not accept wagers from U.S. citizens. MGM Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman said the company's position on Internet gaming has not changed.
"We have always felt it should be legalized, regulated and taxed," Feldman said. "There is no need to create a whole new infrastructure with government oversight because it already exists in the states."
Harrah's Entertainment is the most vocal proponent of legalizing Internet wagering. Earlier this year, the company hired a former online gaming executive to expand its World Series of Poker brand internationally and online.
Harrah's Chairman Gary Loveman has said on many occasions that Internet gaming, especially poker, should be legalized.
Slot machine giant International Game Technology owns two subsidiaries based in Europe that provide content to online casinos.
Bryan said Washington, D.C., moves at a "glacial pace." However, he said there may be an underlying effort to pass Frank's bill because states could realize much-needed tax revenues from Internet gaming. "I believe there is probably more support for it today than there was a decade ago," Bryan said. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=690#690 |
|
legal
Site Admin
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 510
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
iMEGA
UIGEA Upheld by US 3rd Circuit, but States Determine i-Gaming Legal Status
Sept. 1/09
| Quote: |
View the New Jersey Third Circuit Appeals Court 10-page decision on the UIGEA challenge in iMEGA v. Holder, et al, argued July 7/09, filed Sept. 1/09.
'Simply put, a gambling business cannot knowingly accept the enumerated financial instruments in connection with a bet that is illegal under any Federal law or State law applicable in the jurisdiction in which the bet is initiated or received. Thus, the Act "provides a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited."'
|
| Quote: | The US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006, rejecting arguments that the law was vague and intruded on individual privacy rights. The law was challenged by the Washington, DC-based trade association Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Association (iMEGA), on the behalf of the Internet gambling industry.
In their decision, the judges clarified that the legality of Internet gambling transactions depended on state law where the bettor was located, and the laws where the betting operator was located. The court emphasized that UIGEA did not establish a blanket Federal ban on Internet gambling.
“It bears repeating that the Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal,” wrote Judge Dolores Sloviter. “Whether the transaction…constitutes unlawful Internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e. if it is illegal under that state’s law, it constitutes “unlawful Internet gambling” under the Act.”
Joe Brennan Jr., iMEGA’s chairman, said that while the association’s members were disappointed that the court did not overturn the law, they felt there was a silver lining to the court’s ruling. “The court made it clear - gambling on the Internet is unlawful where state law says so. But there are only a half-dozen states which have laws against Internet gambling, leaving 44 states where it is potentially lawful. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.”
Brennan also noted that, in deferring to state law, the court’s decision is consistent with traditional gambling law in the US. “States have always held the power to regulate gambling in this country, not the Federal government. The court’s ruling seems to say ‘back to the future’ when it comes to regulating Internet gambling, so we will turn our attention to the states to make the case that this industry can be properly regulated and produce badly needed tax revenue.”
Brennan also said iMEGA’s legal team would review the ruling and make recommendations on a possible appeal. |
Link to this entry
http://pokerpulse.com/legal/viewtopic.php?p=695#695 |
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Usergroups
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
